American Feminism and Lacanian Distinctions

In her powerful article “Maternal Thinking,” Sara Ruddick, an influential feminist philosopher, defends the thesis that maternal thinking is dominated by three interests: preservation, growth, and acceptability of the child (215, 216, 217). Ruddick stresses that these three interests are often in conflict, and that a good mother thus cannot be a perfectionist. A good mother, so she continues, must accept that “unqualified success in realizing [all three] interests is an illusion” (216). The conflict between the basic goals that a mother strives for in her relation with her child is the “objective basis for… maternal humility” (216). Ruddick sees further difficulties and conflicts in each of the separate maternal interests with her child. Thus in her role of preserving, the mother must walk a fine line between protecting enough and not overprotecting or controlling (217). Given the many challenges and uncertainties emerging in the fragile life of children, the mother needs not only humility but resilient cheerfulness as well (217). In her role as promoter of the child's growth, the mother encounters the challenge that the child's actions are “irregular, unpredictable, often mysterious” (219). To deal successfully with this challenge, Ruddick claims that mothers adopt two philosophical attitudes. They are mentalists, not behaviorists, because they try to see in the changing behavior the continuity of one person. They are also personalista because they understand that listening to the child's fantasies gives them a better way to understand the meaning of the child's behavior than simply looking at his or her acts (219).

The third interest of a mother is making her child acceptable to other people. This involves the socialization task of the mother. Here too Ruddick sees that a profound tension is present. This time it is between what mothers want to make of their children and what the current “patriarchal” society expects from them (220). Ruddick's attitude toward this